Forum:VFD2

Since the previous discussion about VFD's status (Forum:VFD) became too bloated in the repetative discussion about whether or not NRV was any good, I have moved the discussion here. If you would like to discuss the matter, try to be concise in making your points and try not to repeat things that have already been said. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been split into a few sections to organize discussions.

General Deletion Discussion

We should establish a general set of policies as to what sort of things stay and what sort of things get deleted. Whatever policy we do come up with will have exceptions but those should be exceptions instead of falling into the strange grey area that they now do. Beyond that, I think that we've just gotten too big to continue using vague ideas of what should stay and what should go. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a novel Idea... why don't we start by deleting everything that has been done up to this point... start over fresh... douche twice a month, regular, wether it needs it or not... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Heterocidal Tendencies Vacuum 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

It is my opinion that anything meeting the following four criteria should be kept:

• Relevance: Is the article actually about what it's title is?
• Significance: Does the title refer to something that matters?
• Writing Quality: Is the article written with acceptable English spelling and grammar? (unless not doing so is relevant to the topic)
• Humor: Can the article be construed as having humor potential? (note: this is not, do you find it funny)

and that anything not meeting all of these criteria should be deleted. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with this policy; it encourages quality work without hampering the development of new articles. I don't think the present system accomplishes this.

--User:RudolfRadna 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Significance as a criterion. Does the title AAAAAAAAA! refer to something that matters? Perhaps we should say that if an article doesn't pass the 'Humour' test, then we delete it if it fails Significance, or NRV it is if it's a subject there should be an article about. -Conniption 09:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the criteria and I like what Conniption has said in expounding upon it. Something has to be done about all the garbage around.--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. However, obviously having some kind of humor should allow the page to stay. That is, it is the overriding sentiment. --Chronarion 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Implementation

We need to rethink how we deal with the various maintenance and deletion templates. Here is what I propose:

• QVFD: Should be reserved for vandalism, slander, profanity and other completely inappropriate content.
• NRV: Should be reserved for articles that people feel have No Redeeming Value.
• VFD: Should be used for articles that people think should be deleted but aren't quite sure about.
• Expand: Should be used on articles that aren't really bad but are too short to be good.
• Stub: Should be used on short articles that are good enough as is, but might be better with more content.
• The rest of the maintenance templates: Pretty self-explanatory.

I know that I'm proposing some radical changes here but that's my intent. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• How would we notify people of these changes, i mean, only the cabal really reads the VD and knows whats going on? maybe a reskin or smoething... i don't know. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we are still working all of this out. Give us a bit. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• In which category(ies) would you put the useless one-liners? They are QVFD or huff-on-sight at the moment? or are they NRV? or did you intend to propose a change to this? --Carlb 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are more changes than there really are. Useless one-liners are still QVFD unless someone is feeling particularly merciful. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Does anyone have a position on explaining what aspect or aspects of an article have No Redeeming Value in the edit summary to assist writers and admins in dealing with articles that are marked NRV? --RudolfRadna 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if you have a problem with an article being marked NRV, leave a message on the talk page of the person that marked it. If they don't respond, bug an admin. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • NRV is by definition a subjective matter, I think it should mainly be used as a way of weeding out those "drive-by" article writtings of users who come on write a few lines then leave never to return, hence the time limit. However if someone disagrees with the NRV they should be able to remove it (as this shows they have as a minimum "returned"), if the NRV placer feels strongly enough they should, instead of getting all pissy and reflex slap it back on (+ possibly threaten to throw their weight around), place it on VFD for a wider audiance to decide, as their is (obviously) a disagreement betwen at least 2 editors as to it's worth.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It's better, from a practical standpoint, if we don't let authors remove NRV tags without at least notifying someone that they're doing so. Also, it's to be assumed that whoever placed the tag will believe that it should stay. To this end, I think that we should stick with a policy of the author can put it on VFD to save it from NRV or the NRV placer may remove it but that's it. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm unclear on one issue: if an article is NRV'd, and you add to it, do you need to get permission from the person who placed the NRV to remove it? I'm not sure what the correct way to get NRV removed from a page is, or what the criteria is for removing it. One thing I am sure of is I doubt anyone wants to establish a VRN page (Votes to Remove NRV . . . . ) --RudolfRadna 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • From UN:NRV#Removing_NRV: "Once you have improved and expanded your article, you can remove the NRV tag yourself without permission. If you have not sufficiently improved the article, an admin may put the tag on again, but anyone who makes a good faith effort to improve a page will not be penalized for removing the NRV tag. Users who remove the NRV tag in bad faith, however, may be banned or have their page deleted. If you are in doubt, you can always ask the person who originally tagged the page using his or her talk page." ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
            • It should still be made clear to admins (I feel) that removing NRV tags is a lot less serious than out rights "UNCYCLOPEDIA SUCKS"/page blanking vandalism and any ban should ONLY come after at least one intervention on their talk page.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Isn't it? Clear, I mean. I don't patrol the ban log, but I would think this would be obvious. If you see anyone who appears not to know this, you should inform them. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub and rewrite tags

The {{stub}} tags and their variants seem to be rather useless at the moment as they're arbitrarily placed on some articles and not others with seeming disregard as to size and whether the article is incomplete or already done. In some cases, the article was created with the tag and it was never removed. Perhaps {{stub}} should be being used specifically on shortpages and pages under construction; it should be being removed once the article is ready for the world. Those adding the tag perhaps should indicate somewhere (such as the talk page) what type of content the article is still missing to bring it to a "complete" or "readÿ" state.

Stub-sorting or a "stubsensor"-like process could identify:

• which of the existing {{randomstub}} entries are complete articles,
• which are stubs with some potential to become good articles,
• which are merely fragments to be merged elsewhere or
• which are scraps of rubbish which belong in a dustbin somewhere.

Unfortunately, while finding which articles have {{randomstub}} {{catstub}} or {{stub}} and checking their length is an objective enough process, deciding which have potential for expansion, which should be merged, which should be scrapped and which are good/should simply have the stub tag removed would be a long, manual and subjective process. These tags are likely to be on more than a thousand pages by now. Their usefullness is rapidly approaching zéro, and endless quantities of new tags like {{construction}} and {{rewrite}} get created because {{stub}} on a page by now means almost nothing. --Carlb 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Carl, as it is stubs are fairly useless and usually artifacts of earlier days. We don't currently put them on things. For a while we have planned to clean this up because there should be some uses that are legit. I will do this myself if no one else does, but it is a long task, so it might be a while. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From bad to verse

What to do with pages which, once VfD'ed and replaced by something else, seem to have gone from bad to worse? Articles like Porsche come to mind, where whatever was created is even less funny than the deleted original. I'm not suggesting CVP as we do need an article on each of the fine chariots out there, but pulling weeds just to have more weeds grow in? Dunno. --Carlb 13:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That something existed before (and was marginally better) shouldn't mean anything. We just treat the new one as crap, delete it and hope that it'll be better next time. That or it's not that bad and gets a maintenance template. To keep your analogy, sometimes you have to pull up weeds in the same place for quite a while before the nice plants start to come in. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

A policy very much like this is already basically on the books. I am going to write it up in a bit more detail and we will get back to everybody at that point. The key point here is that VFD has been flooded with too much stuff that should rightfully be dealt with using maintenance tags, and it is preventing VFD from working well. New instructions will be posted on VFD prior to it opening again. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me; can I recommend Uncyclopedia:Deletion Policy as a place to put it. --Sir gwax (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated guidelines are now on the above page. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-Conclusion: Threshold

Sorry I missed both the implementation of the cease-fire and the apparent conclusion, because I might have added some comments to be readily ignored by El Cabal. And here they are:

As I saw it, there was nothing really wrong with VFD - or my masterful deletion policy rewrite - except a threshold on VFD candidates. A threshold, you ask? Yes, a threshold, say I. VFD will always be subjective, and cathartic - simply slapping NRV on an article doesn't have the sense of finality a good up or down vote provides. But that doesn't mean it should be so nebulous.

In any case, there should be a clear guideline for deletion, such as a +3 or +4 votes for deletion in order to delete an article. With the numerical threshold, there should be a time limit - something cool and arbitrary, like three days. Since everything should be timestamped anyway, when an article has been up for three days, if it has +2 or 3 or 4 or whatever, get rid of it, pending appeal by its author.

Another issue I have which will likely perist is re-writing. We had a discussion months ago about the importance of not voting "rewrite" (which has re-surfaced as of late, methinks). I believe if anyone takes it upon themselves to rewrite a VFD article, the article should immediately be removed from VFD. If someone wants to delete the re-write, that should be a separate issue. (steps down from soap box) — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite I mean For --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to do something like that for a while but the problem has been that there have been so many articles in VFD that I was forced to maintain a turnover rate on the order of two or three days. If we can get a firm policy that reserves VFD for only ambiguous cases (which is what we're doing in this revision) then hopefully we can have a turnover rate on the order of a week or two. Once the turnover rate is low enough, I'll institute a policy along the lines of, if an article is at +6 (or some other arbitrary number) within some time period, it gets deleted, otherwise it stays. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I think +5 over a period of a week is enough for deletion. --Chronarion 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all a matter of getting the flow into VFD low enough that we can get away with take our time like that. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should allow no consensus as a third possible outcome of a VFD item? If the results are near-tie or don't care, there's no consensus to do anything with an item, so leave it be? --Carlb 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)